First of all I just want to put out the disclamer that Im not some kind of hit man or pissed off worker. I like silencers and the science behind them. Now that thats out of the way.

I was wondering if it is leagal to silence a post ban rifle. As I understand it the threads would be bad, however a pin on type would be ok. Dose anyone know of a website that refrences the legality of these things in the states?

JIM

No, it's not legal to have a silencer (sound suppressor) on a post-ban rifle. Why? Because the BATF has ruled them as flash suppressors as well as sound suppressors. Which they are because there is no muzzle flash from a silencer.

You will need a preban rifle, or one not affected by the silly pre/post-ban crap.

ARRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I HATE THEASE DUMB ASS LAWS!!!!!!!

I can't afford a preban saddly, however I'm praying and voting to get that useless piece of shit(aw94) dead for ever.

You wanna hear the kicker?

Even if you make the post-ban weapon into a legal, tax-paid, 'short barreled rifle' ('SBR'), the ATF holds that the provisions of Sec 922 apply and prevent you from having the folding stock, or the so-called 'flash hider' silencer on it!

That differs from the 'machine gun' rules, which provide that, when a weapon 'becomes' a 'machine gun', as in when you install a registered auto-sear, for instance on a post-ban HK clone, the rules of Sec. 922 do not apply, and the 'new' machine gun can have all the evil features of the dreaded 'assault rifle.'

Now explain [u]that[/u] if you can!

BTW, did I 'parenthesize' too many words in this post?

Eric The(Jes'Checking)Hun[>]:)]

Post from Steve-in-VA -

The saving grace of the Law, and the reason that I would not hesitate to pull the lever, push the plunger, or drop the pellet on a convicted murderer sentenced to death, is this - PREDICTABILITY.

Granted, that according to the convoluted manner in which the Federal government chooses to enact its laws, the situation I described may make 'perfect sense' to a lawyer who has spent his career attempting to study, understand, and apply that law.

It makes not a bit of 'perfect sense' in the manner in which the common man would apprehend it.

The ATF could just as easily have held that the sound suppressor is [u]not[/u] a flash suppressor, since that it not the main purpose or function for its use, but merely a side effect.

And who could then say that they were 'wrong'?

Accordingly, the manner of the ATF's interpretation of the laws is 'unpredictable' and this is just a rule they have made solely to trap the unweary.

Just look at the other thread in this forum on pre-ban built and assembled lower receivers vs. pre-ban built - disassembled - and post-ban reassembled lower receivers.

It's gone on for five pages and still there is no universally accepted 'right' answer, just the observance that, 'well, if they really wanted to make an example of you....'

Trust me, the ATF and the Feds love making examples out of otherwise innocent civilians.

It is the grist for their mill.

It's all about numbers, perceptions, and budgets!

Eric The(IfTheLawPresumesThat,TheLawIsAnAss!)Hun[>]:)]

Actually, it does.  A machinegun is exempt from the definition of a "[b]semi automatic[/b] assault weapon" because it's not semi automatic.

A Short-Barrel Rifle, which is still [b]semi automatic[b] still meets the definition of a "SAAW" so it's subject to the provisions of 922(v).

You are mistakenly thinking it's the tax status of the firearm instead of its functioning which makes a machinegun exempt.

By the same token, an "AOW" is exempt from the AW ban not because it's a taxed NFA firearm, but because it doesn't meet the legal definition of a pistol, rifle or shotgun - and only those three types of weapons are addressed by the AW ban.

Post from Circuits -

Gee, thanks, [b]circuits[/b], for your little lecture.

It was quite informative.

The thrust of my post was not, however, what the laws, or more correctly the rules, that have been promulgated by the ATF, actually are, but whether those rules make 'perfect legal sense.'

Not whether they make sense in the general scheme of firearm law and regulations, but whether they make 'perfect legal sense.'

I submit that they do [u]not[/u] make 'perfect legal sense', for I believe that they are just as arbitrary as anything a federal agency with rule making authority has ever developed.

Explain to me why the ATF [u]had[/u] to classify a sound suppressor as a 'flash suppressor' and therefore impermissible to affix to a post-ban assault weapon.

Could they not just as easily, and reasonably, not classified it as such?

I [u]know[/u] the laws, I want you to consider the sense that the rules make when the ATF can just as easily classify something one way, as to classify t the other.

Have we seen the ATF contradict its own policies, ever? Have they ever concluded that their prior interpretation of the laws was in error and adjusted their rules accordingly?

All without further action by the Congress?

Of course they have, and when they do, they strike against the very predictability of result that all laws should be based upon.

Period.

If this were not so, then [b]LTCetme's[/b] final comments:

wouldn't sound so damnably reasonable, now, would they?

Do you disagree that they are 'dumb ass' laws?

Eric The(ISureAsHellDo!)Hun[>]:)]

They (ATF) define a suppressor as a firearm.

It has no specific cartridge, it has no fire control, it has no way of discharging a projectile [i][u]on its own[/u][/i] yet They (ATF) decided that it [b]was[/b] a firearm. (likely done so to place it under there jurisdiction, which it wasn't until that point.)

That is arbitrary, and if they can be arbitrary about calling it a firearm they can also be arbitrary about stating that its registered use as a [u]sound[/u] suppressor overrided any side effect of being a flash suppressor.

They did similar with machineguns, stating that barrel length was a moot point when used with components registered as a machine gun.

All civilian legal machine guns are pre-1994 anyway so sound suppressors would be legal anyway, wouldn't they?

CRC

Civilian Machineguns are all Pre- May 19, 1986

The date Reagan signed the FOPA

Gee, you're welcome [b]EricTheHun[/b].



Because they do, in fact, suppress flash - just about entirely.  If it suppresses flash, it seems reasonable that it is classified as a flash suppressor, to me - that it also suppresses sound does not affect the former.



[b]Absolutely[/b] - most gun laws are nonsensical feel-good pieces of reactionary liberal crap that don't do what they're intended to do, and rarely even function well as they are written.  A prime example is the AW ban - there are more AR-15 types in private hands than ever, which was surely not the intent of those who crafted the law.  It's just driven up prices on the pre-bans, thanks to the misguided incompetence of the authors and sponsors.

Unfortunately, the 2 concrete examples you provided above (semi-auto NFA vs auto NFA and sound suppressor as flash suppressor), while derived from an ineffective and outright stupid piece of legislation are reasonable and correct interpretations of those laws.  A better example that doesn't make sense to me would be the classification of a 22mm muzzle device as a 'grenade launcher'.... since it's not any more than a hand is.  One could just as effectively launch a grenade from a nice 22mm bull barrel, but that's not forbidden.

Wow I didn't know that we have a veritable army of gun lawyers at the ready! Good to see so many people far more aquainted with the particulars of the law than myself. I can do some solid learning here. Any way next question:

Handgun supperssors, are there any laws that prevent a non LEO/Military from supressing one of these? Im already aware of the states that have out lawed the supressors, however what are the laws like that 'regulate'these things?

Were is a good website to refrence gun laws in an official format?


Thanks for your time,
JIM

Post from Circuits -

Sorry, [b]Circuits[/b], but you didn't read my post carefully enough, it appears.

What I posted was this:

Not that 'sound supressors' do [u]not[/u] also suppress flashes, but that the ATF could have just as easily have ignored the flash supressing qualities of 'sound supressors' and gone the other way.

Do you understand what I'm getting at, yet?

And, while I've never seen any data, I would imagine that there is some 'flash hiding' occurring when a simple 'muzzle brake' is being used on the weapon.

Do you doubt that the ATF, just as easily as it held 'sound supressors' to be flash hiders, could have also applied the same rule to muzzle brakes?

If you say no, then do you really know the ATF?

But that, my dear friend, continues to beg the question of whether or not the 'correct' interpretation of those laws is actually what the ATF is doing.

I note that some hold the terms 'perfect sense' and 'perfect legal sense' not to be the same thing!

That, as any good attorney should know, will be the downfall of the law.

Eric The(GoodAttorney)Hun[>]:)]

Im really just looking into it at the present time. I'd like to get a supressor at some point even if its just for a handgun. The hassle combined with the fact that I'm putting allot of my "fun" money into this new AR. Thanks for the replies though.
   About this police chief thing. Do you have to set up an appointment with him or what? Is it some sort of interview to see if im a psyco?

JIM